[UNAC] Suggestions

[KoA John]

There is nothing random about living to see the end of a round

The randomness of flag spawn can have a critical impact on survival rates. Depending on the map, a particular flag spawn can provide a team a much larger chance of not only winning the round, but of having more guys survive in the event of a win. To deny this fact is silly.

And that means they also have a higher chance of getting more kills. Besides, how many flag spawns have been complete stomps that wouldn't have been complete stomps otherwise? How many flags have been wrested from the hands of those lucky enough to get a favorable spawn? How many flags have started with a one sided with an advantage in numbers and still resulted in a loss? The flag mechanic is fubar, but that has very little influence on gold mechanics. There are too many variables involved to claim any significant amount of correlation between the two.

Next meeting we should consider only letting those who actually participated in the map testing tournament being able to vote on implementing those new maps and new rule sets.

And that would be a new experience for UNAC, seeing as captains who had not participated in previous testing tournaments were allowed to vote on maps and rules that they had no/little experience with. Likewise, I love the bringing up of the idea of not letting captains vote on certain issues when you say this afterwards:

stay true to the voting system that we've used since UNAC began.

The point of saying what I did was to say that next meeting we should do it, this time just stick to the results since the vote has already taken place.

stay true to the voting system that we've used since UNAC began.

Which means that we should have the new gold system.

+1

 

[BlackTide]

The randomness of flag spawn can have a critical impact on survival rates. Depending on the map, a particular flag spawn can provide a team a much larger chance of not only winning the round, but of having more guys survive in the event of a win. To deny this fact is silly.

Under the current rule sets, teams are being doubly rewarded for lucky flag spawns. While the gold change does not end camping on maps or lucky flag spawns, it at least lowers the benefits of doing so.

Just as it increases the chances of survival, it also increases the chance of killing members of the enemy team. Any gain from surviving that you want to see off by removing the round bonus is offset the added gain of an extra 100% that you receive from killing their team. There is no overall change on the effects of a random flag spawn.

Because of the way combat gold works (gold based on opponent's equipment load out), killing players who are ahead of you will reward more cash than if they killed you with the default load out. This not only rewards team more for overcoming the disadvantage of accompanying the loss of a previous round, but it allows teams to more easily "level" the playing field in cases where 1 player got most of the kills. It is much easier to overcome the gold advantage when the opponents gold is funneled into a single player than if it is spread across a team.

If you manage to win a round against a heavily armoured team then the heavily armoured team already suffers by losing most of its armour and the team that beats them benefits by the gold and round bonus.

As for the scores you posted, a gold change cannot overcome the different playing abilities between teams. Teams have off day and the natural abilities of clans are not the same.

The point was that there was no empirical (not deductive) reduction in steamrolling from the evidence available to us, rather, the results seem to be broadly the same as far as steam rolling is concerned for the reason stated above.

Next meeting we should consider only letting those who actually participated in the map testing tournament being able to vote on implementing those new maps and new rule sets.

We should also only let those who have actually played under medium and 1000 gold vote on combat speed and gold settings, right?

 

[MadocComadrin]

When you have maps like Quagmire (which wasn't up to a vote to be removed for some reason) that have overly spread flag spawns, situations often occur where the only way a team can prevent the immediate capture of the flag by the other team is to suicide someone onto the flag. There is nothing strategic about the assault other than a mad dash to get on it.

Ah yes, the veiled insult. Come back when you're not the pot calling the kettle black. And no, even on extremely spread flags, there are ways to make up for it. The back flag in FbtR has been lost countless times despite having a good distance advantage. A lucky flag does not mean a win, especially if you're down in numbers or missing a key role.

Why should such flag spawns, which have a much higher chance of resulting in an ace, have a long term influence on a match? Don't pretend like flag spawns don't influence a map. As things presently stand, teams are forced to pick a spot on the map and hope they get lucky on flag spawns. While there is no way to get rid of the flag spawns, we can certainly limit the impact that randomness has on the match.

It does nothing. Even if you have a better chance at victory overall, you're still getting gold for a win. The changes in the rules just gives the gold to different members of the team and makes more chaotic the amount of gold generated. Also, drop the idea of an "ace." Most aces occur due to a wide gap in skill, experience and cohesion.

Irrespective of which voting system is used, the vote is still favorable to the new gold system.

It was no landslide vote though. The issue is very controversial, and honestly, one testing tournament isn't enough for a rule change like this. Most of the rules we currently see are evolutions, not knee-jerk changes based on one event. You're doing something in a few months where similar changes took years of development for people to compromise on, tweak and fine-tune.

The point of saying what I did was to say that next meeting we should do it, this time just stick to the results since the vote has already taken place.

How does that change anything? You want to restrict voting to certain teams. That idea is extremely contrary to the spirit of UNAC.

 

[Aura (Zaffa)]

When you have maps like Quagmire (which wasn't up to a vote to be removed for some reason) that have overly spread flag spawns, situations often occur where the only way a team can prevent the immediate capture of the flag by the other team is to suicide someone onto the flag. There is nothing strategic about the assault other than a mad dash to get on it.

Ah yes, the veiled insult. Come back when you're not the pot calling the kettle black. And no, even on extremely spread flags, there are ways to make up for it. The back flag in FbtR has been lost countless times despite having a good distance advantage. A lucky flag does not mean a win, especially if you're down in numbers or missing a key role.

If you want to take it as a personal swipe, so be it. The same analysis could have applied to FbtR.....that is until it was changed in the captains meeting. Among the changes discussed and voted on was the moving of the ruins flag spawn into the field.

In the case of Quagmire though, there is no way to simply move flags because of the way the map is designed. Also, I am not saying it is "impossible" for a team to win. That said, the fight for flag is severely stacked for one side. Such maps include the corner spawn on back to back, the balcony spawn on desert town, the side on quagmire, etc. In such scenarios, teams are forced to engage severely disadvantaged scenarios that they wouldn't otherwise.

Why should such flag spawns, which have a much higher chance of resulting in an ace, have a long term influence on a match? Don't pretend like flag spawns don't influence a map. As things presently stand, teams are forced to pick a spot on the map and hope they get lucky on flag spawns. While there is no way to get rid of the flag spawns, we can certainly limit the impact that randomness has on the match.

It does nothing. Even if you have a better chance at victory overall, you're still getting gold for a win. The changes in the rules just gives the gold to different members of the team and makes more chaotic the amount of gold generated. Also, drop the idea of an "ace." Most aces occur due to a wide gap in skill, experience and cohesion.

Aces, or at least close too, are far more common than you'd expect. Skill difference is also not the sole reason for their occurrence. Sometimes a key player will die and things just break down. **** happens. Point is that under the current system aces have far too much influence over the outcome of a match and the new gold system resolves this.

Irrespective of which voting system is used, the vote is still favorable to the new gold system.

It was no landslide vote though. The issue is very controversial, and honestly, one testing tournament isn't enough for a rule change like this. Most of the rules we currently see are evolutions, not knee-jerk changes based on one event. You're doing something in a few months where similar changes took years of development for people to compromise on, tweak and fine-tune.

No gold change has ever occurred within the competitive community outside the temporary change to 1k gold, and long term change to 1200. These were not gradual "evolutionary" changes. They were immediate, just as have been most major changes.

Ex: When the community switched to fastest speed, we did not go from medium to faster to fastest, we went straight to fastest. There was no gradual evolution.

 

[Amaranth the Druid]

this is all the consequences of a few things. The biggest problem being having votes over the biggest game changing things little under a week before the tourney starts. Where the two options are extremely black and white. When i suggested a grey zone of not ZERO round bonus say 50% and then 150% combat most people took it well, but because of us waiting so long for such an important change the response i also got was " uhh its to late to try anything else". so we can't take a middle ground because apparently its too late.

Same with map changes like flag spawns. we wait until now to have a serious discussion and then we bring up things to consider and then the response mainly is " uhhhh its too late to implement that YOU should have said it earlier to be tested in the MTT" when the officials for UNAC were not even finalized until after the MTT started.

and like Madoc said the vote regarding the gold system was not a landside victory at all, not to mention the fact that tK were not present at all and their vote was taken by arys messaging over steam. I would find it seriously irresponsible to change any serious game mechanic based on slight favour when we have a tried and true mechanic, especially when the MTT didn't even finish and there was no survey regarding the results of the games taken place.

edit// i do think a slight change to the gold would be very good, but having it 0 - 200 istead of 100-100 is much to drastic of change, especially if the problem usually brought up with the current system is steamrolling, what is wrong with simply just lowering them more to something like 50-120? but again the response i get will be "uhhh its too late to try that"

 

[Aura (Zaffa)]

All votes are always "right before the tourney". People do not like testing things. The issues are always addressed, in every single tournament, right before it starts. The reason: people are forced to deal with it.

The fact that voting occurs right before a tourney doesn't matter as this is the only time it ever occurs. By your logic, change will never occur.

As to the 200%, it has been discussed from weeks in the form of the map testing tourney and side scrims. The fact that people decided not to participate does not negate the fact that these tests and scrims occurred.

------

Note, as for tk not being present, their opinion probably matters far more (considering that they actually tested the system) than a clan that has only played one scrim on it (gk).

 

[KoA John]

Yea Madoc if teams didn't care enough to test the new ruleset then they shouldn't have a say in what happens with those particular rules.

Its like refusing a bill that you never read, or voting for a president that you know nothing about.

 

[Aura (Zaffa)]

Yea Madoc if teams didn't care enough to test the new ruleset then they shouldn't have a say in what happens with those particular rules.

Issue is that the reason why the teams opposing the system didn't get to discuss the rules more is because they actively opposed participation. It wasn't that the discussion and testing wasn't available. They just thought it wasn't worth their time.

Coming back now and crying about not enough discussion is ridiculous.

 

[ClockWise]

Yea Madoc if teams didn't care enough to test the new ruleset then they shouldn't have a say in what happens with those particular rules.

Issue is that the reason why the teams opposing the system didn't get to discuss the rules more is because they actively opposed participation. It wasn't that the discussion and testing wasn't available. They just thought it wasn't worth their time.

Coming back now and crying about not enough discussion is ridiculous.

Which teams did you have in mind?

 

[Aura (Zaffa)]

Yea Madoc if teams didn't care enough to test the new ruleset then they shouldn't have a say in what happens with those particular rules.

Issue is that the reason why the teams opposing the system didn't get to discuss the rules more is because they actively opposed participation. It wasn't that the discussion and testing wasn't available. They just thought it wasn't worth their time.

Coming back now and crying about not enough discussion is ridiculous.

Which teams did you have in mind?

GK explicitly noted in the meeting that they had only played 1 scrim on the rule set and that that it was enough to judge the rule set on. However, the argument was made that not enough discussion had occurred.

Blacktide's team and TSC also have not extensively played on the rule set. This is unlike TR, Rastaferi, tk, and Wappaw who have extensively played on the rule set.

 

[Amaranth the Druid]

TSC also have not extensively played on the rule set

based on what exactly are these accusations?
every scrim we have done since the start of the MTT has been with the new ruleset.

don't try and discredit me with baseless accusations.

 

[BlackTide]

No-one has played 'extensively' under that system, the testing tournament lasted all of 13 days. Nonetheless, my team has played under these rules in some scrims and several of my members played in the brief testing tournament.

 

[MadocComadrin]

Yea Madoc if teams didn't care enough to test the new ruleset then they shouldn't have a say in what happens with those particular rules.

Its like refusing a bill that you never read, or voting for a president that you know nothing about.

And the teams that were not sure about entering at all? Or how about we go back and rewrite the past UNACs where BKS, Balion, Wappaw, WK, did not enter one or all of the testing tournaments? And they still have an interest in the rules--it still effects them. You're disenfranchising teams on matters where they do have vested interests.

In the case of Quagmire though, there is no way to simply move flags because of the way the map is designed.

I'm still around: I've edited the map before and can do it again. I could easily shift the flags around with no or minor additional prop changes.  The map is relatively small, despite the flag placements

That said, the fight for flag is severely stacked for one side. Such maps include the corner spawn on back to back, the balcony spawn on desert town, the side on quagmire, etc. In such scenarios, teams are forced to engage severely disadvantaged scenarios that they wouldn't otherwise.

Left-bottom corner on back-to-back needs work, I acknowledge that. The intent was to sacrifice time to take a better position by using the short stairs/coming around from the top flag. This did not work out as planned. But I digress, this "severe disadvantage" has disproportionately less empirical evidence of influencing victory than your theorycrafting, and the victory between the gold rules do not create that much of a different scenario.

Aces, or at least close too, are far more common than you'd expect. Skill difference is also not the sole reason for their occurrence. Sometimes a key player will die and things just break down. **** happens. Point is that under the current system aces have far too much influence over the outcome of a match and the new gold system resolves this.

Not really. It shifts gold into different players hands. And even if aces caused so much of a gold difference, what is the issue? If a team falls apart, then some would say they should be punished! Did that key player die due to random chance too? Why is a team relying so much one player?

Ex: When the community switched to fastest speed, we did not go from medium to faster to fastest, we went straight to fastest. There was no gradual evolution.

Of course the switch was from medium to fastest: faster rarely entered the debate as people thought it was inferior to both (Although PTK tried running a faster duel server). However, there was a looooooong period of time where people swapped back and forth between medium and fastest: where the combat speed for a scrim could be determined not from a rule-set or community decision but the preferences of the participating clans. Fastest won out eventually in NA.

And really? No gold change has taken place in the NA community? REALLY? For the longest time it was 1000 vs 1500. That started as early as Robert leading TKoV and didn't completely end until we switched to 1200.

Also, let's keep in mind that NO ONE was calling for this type of change in gold rules before it was brought up. There was no necessitating demand.

 

[XeleonPrime]

It seems that a lot of people are trying to discredit tK's opinion on the matter because we weren't "present" during the meeting, so i will reinstate our opinion here.

No-one has played 'extensively' under that system, the testing tournament lasted all of 13 days. Nonetheless, my team has played under these rules in some scrims and several of my members played in the brief testing tournament.

tK has played with the proposed change in gold ~20 times (not including the testing tourney matches). All of our players support the change for a number of reasons.

1) The obvious one being a less snow-balled team.
Having played with the proposed change in many scrims, i can say that this change balances the game a bit more. Flukes occur in matches, as i'm sure all of have us experienced, and can cause one team to ace another even if they are the same skill level. This leads to the team being aced at a significant disadvantage because now they are faced against a WHOLE team that has tin gear.
With the proposed change in gold this happens way less often, offering a more balanced and enjoyable match.

2) Introduces a new dynamic into the game.
Funneling money onto a player that has better use of it. This was talked about a bit during the testing tourney.
For example if a match has come down to team A having 1 archer and team B having 1 archer and 1 inf. It is more efficient that team B tries to give the kill to the inf because he certainly can do more with the money rather than the archer having it.
I've seen a few players post that the proposed change didn't change the way that they played. This is mainly because they chose not to. These teams decided to play the way they normally did, which might not have been the most efficient. They chose not to adjust to the change in meta and so they did not experience the proposed change to its full extent.
Our team on the other hand did try funneling gold onto certain players to see the result. In my opinion it brought more strategy to matches along with more fun.

Not really. It shifts gold into different players hands. And even if aces caused so much of a gold difference, what is the issue? If a team falls apart, then some would say they should be punished! Did that key player die due to random chance too? Why is a team relying so much one player?

Should a team be punished so much that they lose a set 4-0 because of 1 mistake in the first round?
Why shouldn't a team rely on their cavalry or archers being present in fights?

Also, since when is a majority vote not enough to warrant a change?

 

[KoA John]

Yea 50% round bonus is still better than 100%, the snowballing is just getting out of hand. I, as well think it makes the game more balanced, instead of each player on the enemy team getting 500g each which totals 500 x 8 = 4000 for 1 round win (not counting kill gold and armor value).

But hey ignore the majority, I love democracy. Long live the voting system.

 

[WilySly]

Should TR enter a last minute second team, the vote would be be more lopsided at 6-4, versus the 5-4 it is now.

What's the point of having deadlines for Sign ups then?
If team can still enter competition 1 week after they were closed...

#wKASSEMBLE!!

On a more serious note (and apologies if I missed it), but did you guys decide not to use the swiss system after all?

 

[Nord Champion]

On a more serious note (and apologies if I missed it), but did you guys decide not to use the swiss system after all?

No, we are using the Swiss System.

 

[Aura (Zaffa)]

This tournament shouldn't start until after a unified module has been distributed.

 

[Arys]

This tournament shouldn't start until after a unified module has been distributed.

The module will be up today.

 

[The_Troubadour]

We should have pundits